Can this IP24 rated Wall Cabinet be installed in Zone 2?

[JohnW2]

I suspect that your house, like mine and every other I've been in, contains many, many items that are IP2X or worse that foreseeably could be splashed with water. We all have to take the likelihood into account.

Oh, sure. Hands up all those who have never encountered a ceiling rose or pendant lamholder literally full of water (with water dripping off the lamp!)! However, I don't think there is anything electrical in my house (apart from electric showers and shaver sockets) which are anywhere where they are at significant risk of being splashed with water 'under normal circulstances (i.e. leaking roofs and pluming apart)!

In any event, I think that it is psychologically different (even if irrational) when it comes to installing new things - and I don't think I would knowingly install something new which was IP2x in a location where water splashes were at all likely.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[sparkticus]

A bathroom fan (or many other fans for that matter) may well be an example of IP24. I have not looked yet at mine but I suspect the grill pitch may be approximately 12mm and the fan/motor is almost certainly rated at IPX4 or higher.


A bathroom fan is concentrating highly moisture saturated air at itself

 

[sparkticus]

A bathroom fan (or many other fans for that matter) may well be an example of IP24. I have not looked yet at mine but I suspect the grill pitch may be approximately 12mm and the fan/motor is almost certainly rated at IPX4 or higher.


A bathroom fan is concentrating highly moisture saturated air at itself

In fact take a look at this little beast
http://www.e-tradecounter.co.uk/p-1315-mistral-ip24-bathroom-fan-heater.aspx

 

[sparkticus]

Just looked at my bathroom fan. The grills are apprx 10mm apart yet the fan as a whole is rated IP44. I suspect in this case the IP44 refers to the internal motor housing. So it may refer to the sub-system. Since IP4X refers to objects <1mm the entire fan as a system probably complies with IP24 not IP44.

So my question: has it been incorrectly rated since one can clearly contact the rotating fan blade with a 9mm wide item such as a screwdriver?

By the way, the fan impeller is made of plastic and sits approximately 10mm from the inside of the grill.

 

[JohnW2]

Just looked at my bathroom fan. The grills are apprx 10mm apart yet the fan as a whole is rated IP44. I suspect in this case the IP44 refers to the internal motor housing. So it may refer to the sub-system. Since IP4X refers to objects <1mm the entire fan as a system probably complies with IP24 not IP44.

Yes, I wonder if that (which I sort-of hinted at when I spoke of 'inner enclosures') might explain some of the confusion - i.e. is it possible that the IP ratings given to electrical equipment in such circumstances only relates to the electrical parts of the equipment?

Just So my question: has it been incorrectly rated since one can clearly contact the rotating fan blade with a 9mm wide item such as a screwdriver?

As above, I guess it depends upon whether the IP rating is meant to relate only to electrical hazards/harms, or to mechanical ones as well.

Consider a different scenario, without the added confusion of the 'mechanical hazard'. Say that some electrical sub-assembly, inside an undeniably IP44 enclosure, lived inside an outer casing which had ventilation grills with 10mm gaps. It really would make no sense to down-rate the entire equipment to below IP44 just because of that outer 'additional protection', would it?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[sparkticus]

Consider a different scenario, without the added confusion of the 'mechanical hazard'. Say that some electrical sub-assembly, inside an undeniably IP44 enclosure, lived inside an outer casing which had ventilation grills with 10mm gaps. It really would make no sense to down-rate the entire equipment to below IP44 just because of that outer 'additional protection', would it?

Kind Regards, John.

Yes, I definitely agree. But I suspect (yet I can't find any proof) that the mechanical hazard aspect of the fan is a consideration for IP ratings.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, I definitely agree. But I suspect (yet I can't find any proof) that the mechanical hazard aspect of the fan is a consideration for IP ratings.

Yes, you appear to be right:

1) Protection of persons against access to hazardous parts inside enclosures. This is intended to cover protection of persons against accidental contact with electrically ‘live’ or otherwise hazardous mechanical parts contained within the enclosure, e.g. rotating blades, switch mechanisms etc.

However, although the IP rating system clearly does take mechanical hazards into account, this is (understandably) not 'of interest' to the Wiring Regulations in the context we are discussing, since the requirement for equipment in bathrooms we are discussing is IPx4.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[sparkticus]

However, although the IP rating system clearly does take mechanical hazards into account, this is (understandably) not 'of interest' to the Wiring Regulations in the context we are discussing, since the requirement for equipment in bathrooms we are discussing is IPx4.

Yes, an interesting point John and I reflect on the socket proximity to gas pipe thread of a few days ago. The wiring regs certainly is master of its own universe

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, an interesting point John and I reflect on the socket proximity to gas pipe thread of a few days ago. The wiring regs certainly is master of its own universe

Indeed. In fact, if one takes the OSG's mention of 'electrical cables' to include a bit of 10mm² G/Y cable, the MPB conductor is not allowed to get within 25mm of a gas pipe - which would make terminating it a little difficult

Kind Regards, John.

 

[flameport]

The same cabinet is available from Homebase where it is listed as IP44.
Either way, can't see any issue with it being in zone 2. The light on the top is SELV, and the shaver socket assembly is a lump of plastic located inside the cabinet.

Also over £100 cheaper - and this isn't a similar cabinet, it's the exact same one.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So my question: has it been incorrectly rated since one can clearly contact the rotating fan blade with a 9mm wide item such as a screwdriver?

Poking a screwdriver through the grille of a running fan?

That's IQ24, not IP24...

 

[sparkticus]

So my question: has it been incorrectly rated since one can clearly contact the rotating fan blade with a 9mm wide item such as a screwdriver?

Poking a screwdriver through the grille of a running fan?

That's IQ24, not IP24...

I have a couple of customers who comply with IQ24. Had a trainee once who complied with IQ00 Testing for live by dabbing his finger on the wire

 

[bernardgreen]

I have a couple of customers who comply with IQ24. Had a trainee once who complied with IQ00 Testing for live by dabbing his finger on the wire

Seen that. As the "tester" was standing on a dry insulating floor there was no circuit through him and no sensation of voltage. It was a bit different when he was actually working on the circuit and touched ( his dead ) live while leaning against the earthed cabinet.

 

[stillp]

quote]1) Protection of persons against access to hazardous parts inside enclosures. This is intended to cover protection of persons against accidental contact with electrically ‘live’ or otherwise hazardous mechanical parts contained within the enclosure, e.g. rotating blades, switch mechanisms etc.

[/quote]
What's that from John? It isn't in IEC 60529.

 

[JohnW2]

1) Protection of persons against access to hazardous parts inside enclosures. This is intended to cover protection of persons against accidental contact with electrically ‘live’ or otherwise hazardous mechanical parts contained within the enclosure, e.g. rotating blades, switch mechanisms etc.

What's that from John? It isn't in IEC 60529.

See page 4 of this

Kind Regards, John.